IRLF 


TDfl 


806l'l2 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


THE  LUCIANIC  VERSION  OF  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  ILLUSTRA- 
TED FROM  JEREMIAH  1-3 


BY 

BOYDEN  KEITH  YERKES 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN 

PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


Reprinted  from  the 

JOURNAL  OF  BIBLICAL  LITERATURE 
XXXVII  (1918),  III-IV 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


THE  LUCIANIC  VERSION  OF  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  ILLUSTRA- 
TED FROM  JEREMIAH  1-3 


BY 

BOYDEN  KEITH  YERKES 

K 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN 

PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


Reprinted  from  the 

JOURNAL  OF  BIBLICAL  LITERATURE 
XXXVII  (1918),  III-IV 


Reprinted  from  JOURNAL  OF  BIBLICAL  LITERATURE,  Vol.  XXXVII,  1918. 


THE   LUCIANIC  VERSION  OF  THE   O^D  • 

AS  ILLUSTRATED  FROM  JEREMIAH  1-3* 

ROYDEN  KEITH  YERKES 
UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  quest  of  the  Lucianic  text  of  the  Greek  Old  Testament, 
which  was  undertaken  with  such  vigor  a  generation  ago  under 
the  able  leadership  of  Field  and  Lagarde,  has  become  little  more 
than  an  avocation  among  scholars  since  the  death  of  those  two 
pioneers.  The  importance  of  this  work  consists  in  the  fact  that 
the  Lucianic  version  was  one  of  the  three  great  Christian  recen- 
sions of  the  Greek  Old  Testament  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries. 

*  CHRONOLOGICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY.  1798  Holmes,  Praefatio  in  Pentateu- 
chum;  1864  Vercellone,  Variae  Lectiones;  1875  Field,  Origenis  Hexaplorum 
quae  supersunt,  Prolegomena,  ch.  IX;  1876  Nestle,  Eeview  of  Field's 
"Hexapla,"  ThLZ,  I,  7,  pp.  179-183;  1882  Hort,  Introduction  to  the  N.  T. 
in  Greek,  p.  86;  1882  Hollenberg,  Eeview  of  Lagarde  Js  ' l  Ankiindigung, " 
TliLZ,  VII,  7,  pp.  145-147;  1883  Lagarde,  Librorum  Veteris  Testamenti 
Canonicorum  Pars  Prior;  1884  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  I,  pp.  122-124; 
175-176;  1884  Smith,  Eeview  of  Lagarde 's  "  Septuagint, "  0.  T.  Student, 
Sep.,  pp.  37-39;  1886  CoVnill,  Das  Buch  des  Propheten  Ezechiel,  Prolego- 
mena, pp.  65-66;  1886  Nestle,  Septuaginta  Studien;  1887  Eeckendorf, 
"tiber  den  Werth  der  altathiopischen  Pentateuchiibersetzung  fur  die  Eecon- 
struction  der  Septuaginta,"  ZATW,  VII,  pp.  61-90;  1890  Driver,  Notes 
on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  Samuel;  1892  Stockmayer,  "Hat  Lucian  zu 
seiner  Septuagintarevision  die  Peschito  beniitzt?"  ZATW,  XII,  pp.  218- 
223;  1893  Harnack,  Die  altchristliche  Literatur,  pp.  526-531;  1894  Har- 
nack,  Dogmengeschichte,-  Eng.  Tr.,  IV,  pp.  3-7;  1895  Mez,  Die  Bibel  des 
Josephus;  1896  Nestle,  Septuaginta  Studien  II;  1896  Burkitt,  The  Old 
Latin  and  the  Itala,  p.  9;  1898  Wendland,  "Zu  Philos  Schrift  De  Posteri- 
tate  Caini,"  Philologus,  LVII,  249-287;  1899  Nestle,  "Zur  Eeconstruction 
der  Septuaginta,"  Philologus,  LVIII,  121-131;  1899  Smith,  Samuel,  pp. 
402-407;  1900  Swete,  Introduction  to  the  0.  T.  in  Greek,  pp.  80-85; 
1901  ?,  " Lucian 'B  Eecension  of  the  Septuagint,"  Ch.  Quar.  Rev.,  pp. 
379-398;  1902  Harnack,  Lucian  der  Mdrtyrer,  Hauck's  Eeal-Enc.;  1902 
Liebmann,  Der  Text  zu  Jesaia  24-27,  ZATW,  pp.  285-305;  1910  Harnack, 
Lucian  the  Martyr,  New  Schaff-Herzog,  VII,  53-54;  1910  Procksch,  Septua- 
ginta Studien,  pp.  76-87;  1913  Srawley,  Antiochene  Theology,  Hastings 
ERE,  I,  pp.  584-585. 


444334 


164  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

Jerome,  writing  less  than  a  hundred  years  after  the  death  of 
Lueiar.  ivn'.'irked,  Alexandria  et  Aegyptus  in  LXX  suis  Hesy- 
laudat  auctorem.  Const antinopolis  usque  Antiochiam 
&j*tyHs.  e'xemplaria  probat.  Mediae  inter  has  provin- 
ciae  Palaestinos  codices  legunt  quos  ab  Origene  elaboratos  Euse- 
bius  et  Pamphylius  vulgaverunt:  totius  orbis  hac  inter  se  trifaria 
varietate  compugnat.1  About  the  same  time  he  wrote,  In  quo 
illud  breviter  admoneo,  ut  sciatis  aliam  esse  editionem,  quam 
Origenes  et  Caesariensis  Eusebius  omnesque  Graeciae  tractatores 
Koivrjv,  id  est  communem,  appellant,  atque  vulgatam,  et  a  plerisque 
nunc  AovKiavos  dicitur.2 

With  the  early  life  of  Lucian  we  are  not  concerned;  at  best 
the  facts  are  so  meager  and  so  obscured  that  little  can  be  said 
with  certainty.  He  first  appears  at  Antioch  as  a  vir  disertis- 
simus  Antiochenae  Ecclesiae  presbyter.3  He  may  have  been  the 
leader  of  the  theological  school  centered  there;  his  was  at  least 
a  dominating  influence,  and  it  was  under  him  that  the  Antiochene 
school  of  theology  first  came  into  the  clear  light  as  actuated  by 
distinctive  principles. 

Theologically  this  school  was  marked  by  the  early  use  of 
Aristotelian  philosophy.  In  biblical  work  it  was  characterized 
by  principles  of  literal  interpretation,  as  contrasted  with  the 
allegorical  method  of  the  school  of  Origen,  while  it  made  free 
use  of  textual  criticism  as  far  as  possible.  That  Lucian  was 
influenced  by  these  suspect  principles  may  be  inferred  from  the 
fact  that  he  lived  for  nearly  thirty  years  apart  from  the  Church.4 
He  was  finally  restored  to  communion,  and  suffered  martyrdom 
under  Maximian  in  311  or  312  at  Nicomedia.5 

While  at  Antioch  Lucian  was  famed  for  his  biblical  learning.6 
In  company  with  the  Hebrew  scholar  Dorotheus  he  undertook  the 
preparation  of  an  edition  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek. 

1  Jerome,  Contra  Rufinum  2:26;    Praefatio  ad  Paraleipomena. 

2  Jerome,  Epistola  106  Ad  Sunniam  et  Fretelam. 
8  Jerome,  De  viris  illusinbus,  77. 

*  aTrocrvvaywybs  %[iet.v e  rpiwv  ewiffKOTruv  TroXuerous  xpoyou.  Theodoret,  if.  E.f 
1:  3. 

5Eusebius,  H.  E.,  8:  13;  Sozomen,  H.  E.,  3:  5;  Georg.  Ced.,  517;  Theo- 
phanus,  Chronographica,  9 ;  Nicetas,  Praef.  Cyr.  Alex.  In  Psalmos;  Jerome, 
De  viris  illus.,  77 ;  Pseudo-Athanasius,  Synopsis  Sacrae  Scripturae. 

6  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  9 :  6. 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         165 

Pseudo-Athanasius,  in  the  Synopsis  Sacrae  Script  urae,  describes 

his  work  as  follows :  OOTIS  KOL  avros  rats  Tr/ooyeypa/A/xerats  luSo^em  /cat 
rots  'EjSpaiKOts  €VTV)((i)v  Kat  eTroTrreixra?  ^aer'  aKpt/3etas  TO,  XeiVovra  rj  Kat 
TreptTTa  T^S  dA?7$€ias  prjfJLara  /cat  Stop#wcrajuevos  ev  rots  owcetots  rwv 
ypac/><ov  TOTTOIS  e£eSoro  rots  xptoridVots  dSeA^ots.  Simeon  Metaphrastes, 

writing  about  965,  suggests  that  the  Greek  texts  were  quite 
corrupt  at  the  time  of  Lucian.  These  corruptions  had  arisen 
partly  by  the  accidents  of  translation  and  retranslation,  and 
partly  from  deliberate  efforts  to  pervert  the  meaning  of  the 
text.  Lucian  is  said  to  have  retranslated  the  whole  of  the  Old 
Testament  into  Greek  from  the  Hebrew,  of  which  he  is  described 
as  having  had  a  very  accurate  knowledge.  His  work  gained 
great  prevalence  in  the  region  of  which  Antioch  was  the  center, 
and  was  of  such  importance  that  Pseudo-Athanasius  speaks  of 
the  translation  as  17  e/?8o'/^,  while  Jerome  ranks  it  with  that  of 
Origen. 

Since  Lucian 's  version,  and  all  copies  which  were  possibly 
made  from  it,  have  long  since  been  lost,  it  becomes  necessary, 
before  any  estimate  of  his  work  can  be  given,  to  attempt  to  make 
a  restoration  of  his  recension  by  a  study  of  existing  manuscripts. 
It  may  then  be  possible  to  judge  whether  Jerome's  description 
of  his  work  was  not  too  meager  and  whether  Simeon  Meta- 
phrastes did  not  err  on  the  other  side  by  attributing  too  much 
to  the  work  of  the  Antiochene  scholar.  It  may  also  be  possible 
to  form  some  idea  of  the  Greek  translations  with  which  he  was 
familiar,  and  of  the  Hebrew  text  from  which  he  made  his 
corrections  or  his  translation,  as  the  case  may  be. 

It  has  usually  been  assumed  that  all  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Old  Testament  can  be  traced,  or  could  be  traced  if  the 
means  were  accessible,  back  to  an  original  "  Septuagint, "  or 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek ;  or  that  early  trans- 
lators, as,  e.  g.,  Aquila,  Theodotion,  Symmachus,  Origen,  Hesy- 
chius  and  Lucian,  had  some  such  uniform  copy  upon  which  to 
base  their  efforts.  From  this  assumption  much  Septuagint  work 
has  proceeded. 

Now  it  has  long  been  noticed  that  no  two  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Old  Testament  agree  with  each  other,  although  some  show 
greater  kinship  than  others.  A  study  of  a  single  manuscript, 
however,  e.  g.,  the  B  text,  reveals  some  interesting  facts.  There 


166  JOURNAL    OP   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

are  certain  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  which,  in  the  Masoretic 
text,  are  duplicates  of  each  other.  If  any  one  Greek  manuscript 
were  a  consistent  and  uniform  translation,  or  copy  of  such  trans- 
lation, it  would  be  expected  that  these  duplicates  would  be 
translated  somewhat  alike.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  an  examination 
shows  that  even  in  these  parts  there  are  such  variations  as  to 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  two  entirely  different  hands  were  at 
work  in  the  two  places. 

In  the  Appendix  to  this  paper  will  be  found  a  table  of  six 
columns  of  which  the  second  and  the  fifth  will  occupy  our  atten- 
tion at  present.  In  these  columns  will  be  found  readings  from 
the  B  texts  of  2  Kings  19 : 1-6  and  Isaiah  37 : 1-6  in  which  the 
Hebrew  texts  are  repeated  practically  verbatim.  In  these  six 
verses  there  are  thirty  variants.  Six  are  differences  in  gram- 
mar; three  are  differences  in  number;  one  is  in  the  order  of 
words ;  eleven  are  differences  of  vocabulary ;  there  are  six  omis- 
sions in  Isaiah  as  against  Kings  and  four  in  Kings  as  against 
Isaiah. 

This  table  is  followed  by  a  similar  one  comparing  2  Kings 
24 : 18-25 :  8  with  Jeremiah  52 : 1-12  which  are  alike  in  the 
Hebrew.  The  B  texts  of  these  two  sections  reveal  the  following 
differences:  twelve  in  grammar,  ten  in  vocabulary,  two  in  the 
spelling  of  proper  names,  one  in  the  order  of  words,  one  in 
number,  four  in  the  forms  of  verbs,  two  in  the  reading  of  the 
original  Hebrew,  four  omissions  in  Kings  against  Jeremiah, 
while  Jeremiah  omits  two  whole  verses  and  two  minor  words 
against  Kings.  A  study  of  these  readings  and  variations  leads 
to  two  conclusions : 

1.  The  Hebrew  texts,  while  they  are  alike  at  present,  were 
certainly  not  alike  at  the  beginning. 

2.  The  Greek  translations  were  made  not  only  from  different 
Hebrew  texts  and  by  different  hands,  but  probably  by  different 
schools  and  at  different  times. 

The  probability  is  that  there  was  not  in  the  early  centuries 
any  such  thing  as  ' '  The  Septuagint, ' '  but  that  the  Greek  version 
of  the  Old  Testament  came  into  life  very  like  the  English  Bible. 
It  was  probably  preceded  by  various  translations  of  single  books, 
or  groups  of  books,  contributed  by  different  hands  who  worked 
over  the  space  of  several  centuries.  The  first  part  to  be  trans- 
lated was  undoubtedly  the  Torah,  which  may  have  been  rendered 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         107 

in  an  official,  or  semi-official  manner,  as  the  letter  of  Aristeas 
suggests.  This  was  followed  by  translations  of  other  parts  as 
need  arose  or  as  men  had  the  inclination.7 

Even  in  the  first  century  of  our  era  there  was  no  uniform  ver- 
sion of  the  Greek  Old  Testament,  as  is  borne  out  by  a  comparison 
of  the  New  Testament  with  any  known  version  or  manuscripfTof 
the  Old  Testament.  Endeavors  have  been  made8  to  ascertain 
what  version  or  versions  the  New  Testament  writers  used,  but 
Avith  little  more  than  tentative  hypotheses  as  results,  and  with  no 
unanimity  of  opinion. 

Philo~  to  be  sure,  refers  to  an  annual  festival9  on  the  island 
of  Pharus  commemorative  of  the  completion  of  the  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek,  but  this  would  connote  no 
more  than  the  fact  that  all  the  books  had  been  translated. 

There  is  no  evidence  of  an  attempt  to  produce  a  uniform 
rendering  of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek  until  the  second  cen- 
tury of  our  era  and  after  that  time  there  were  two  different 
influences  at  work.  The  first  was  the  Jewish-Ebionitic  influence 
which  produced  the  versions  of  Aquila,  Theodotion  and  Sym- 
machus ;  the  second  was  the  Christian  influence  which  animated 
Origen,  Hesychius  and  Lucian  of  Antioch. 

In  tracing  the  lineage  of  the  Greek  texts  of  the  Old  Testament 
it  must  be  remembered  that  there  was  probably  no  uniform 
Hebrew  text  from  which  the  earliest  translations  were  made. 
There  may  have  been  an  official  Hebrew  text  of  the  Torah  at  the 
time  this  part  was  translated  into  Greek.  This  was,  in  all  prob- 
ability, before  the  composition  of  many  parts  of  the  Nebiim  and 
certainly  before  the  completion  of  the  Kethubim.  As  these  later 
Avritings  were  produced,  translations  of  them  were  made  into 
Greek,  possibly  long  before  they  were  accorded  the  dignity  of 
canonicity,  and  certainly  long  before  the  Hebrew  text  had  become 
fixed.  Swete10  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  "no  official  text 
held  undisputed  possession  in  the  first  century  or  was  recognized 
by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament."  And  inasmuch  as  the 
content  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  was  not  fixed  until  the  end  of  the 

7  Nestle,   in   Philologus,   vol.   LVIII,   came  to   the   same   conclusion,   but 
based  his  arguments  upon  entirely  different  grounds. 

8  Swete,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Greelc,  Part  III,  ch.  ii. 
0  Quotation  in  Swete,  op.  cit.,  p.  13. 

10  op.  cit.,  p.  439. 


168  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

first  century  of  our  era,  and  the  Hebrew  text  until  much  later, 
it  would  be  surprising  if  there  were  any  such  thing  as  a  uniform 
Greek  translation.  In  fact,  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  attempt 
at  a  uniform  rendering  of  the  whole  Old  Testament,  or  rather 
a  uniform  collection  of  the  Graeco-Jewish  literature  until  the 
version  of  Aquila.  By  this  time  both  the  Hebrew  texts  and  the 
Greek  translations  of  individual  books  had  been  copied  so  often 
that  there  was  already  a  considerable  disparity  between  them. 

The  translations  of  the  third  century  Christiaa  scholars  are 
analogous,  in  a  general  way,  to  the  King  James,  the  Douay  and 
the  Revised  versions  of  the  Bible  in  English.11  Attempts  were 
made  to  render  the  entire  Bible  into  the  vernacular.  These 
attempts  were  based  upon  whatever  former  translations  were 
accessible  to  the  scholars  as  well  as  upon  the  studies  of  these 
scholars  in  the  original  texts.  Their  results  were  never  univer- 
sally recognized  and  their  use  was  locally  or  theologically  con- 
fined to  those  who  were  in  sympathy  with  the  translators.  Any 
attempt  to  restore  an  original  Septuagint,  therefore,  becomes 
impossible.  At  Alexandria,  at  Antioch  and  at  other  metropoli- 
tan cities  there  were  probably  collections  of  rolls  of  translations 
made  by  entirely  different  hands  and  -at  different  times. 

Our  present  problem  is  the  construction,  with  the  aid  of  known 
manuscripts,  of  a  hypothetical  text  which  we  may  assume  to 
resemble  somewhat  the  translation  of  Lucian,  and,  from  this 
hypothetical  text,  to  estimate  the  character  of  the  work  of  Lucian. 

The  efforts  to  recover  the  text  of  Lucian  are  largely  the  work 
of  scholars  of  the  last  generation.  Robert  Holmes  called  atten- 
tion12 in  1798  to  the  similarity  existing  between  the  Compluten- 
sian  Polyglot  and  codices  19.108.118.  Vercellone13  wrote  in 
1864  that  codices  19.82.93.108.  unum  idemque  avn-ypafov  ad 
singularem  quandam  recensionem  spectans  representare.  Neither 
of  these  writers,  however,  suggested  a  connection  between  the 
codices  mentioned  and  the  recension  of  Lucian. 

The  first  stride  toward  an  attempted  recovery  of  the  recension 
was  made  by  Frederick  Field  in  1875  in  his  Origenis  Hexaplorum 

11  Nestle,  op.  cit.,  makes  the  same  comparison  with  the  various  German 
translations  of  the  Bible. 

12  Praefatio  in  Pentateuchum. 

13  Variae  Lectiones  2 :  436. 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         169 

quae  supersunt.  A  note  prefixed  to  the  Arabic  translation  of 
the  Syro-Hexaplar  read:  Lucian  compared  with  greatest  care 
these  Hebrew  copies,  and  if  he  found  anything  lacking  or  super- 
fluous he  restored  it  to  its  place,  prefixing  to  the  part  amended 
the  initial  letter  L.  This  method  of  marking,  absent  from  most 
manuscripts,  was  found  in  the  Syro-Hexaplar.  A  single  example 
will  illustrate  Field's  method. 

4    Kings    23  :  37    reads    avrjp    Kara    r-^v    orvvrL/A-rjcnv    avrov    eSw/cav ; 

the  Syro-Hexaplar  gives  a  marginal  reading  Kara  Sum/up  avrov 
and  indicates  that  it  is  Lucianic.  A  reference  to  Holmes-Parsons 
in  loco  shows  that  this  reading  is  supported  by  codices  19.18. 
93 . 108  and  the  Complutensian.  Careful  study  led  Field  to  the 
conclusion14  certissime  concludi  arctam  propinquitatem,  nedum 
identitatem,  inter  Luciani  editionem  et  codices  19.82.93.108. 

Meanwhile  Paul  de  Lagarde  had  been  working  upon  an  entirely 
independent  line  and  his  conclusions  were  published  in  his 
Librorum  Veteris  Testamenti  Canonicorum  Pars  Prior  in  1883. 
Commencing  with  the  suggestions  of  Holmes  and  Vercellone,- 
he  established  the  relationship  between  codices  19 . 82 . 93 . 108 . 118 
and  the  Complutensian  Polyglot.  He  collected  Old  Testament 
quotations  of  Chrysostom  and  found  that  his  readings  were 
supported  by  members  of  this  group  of  codices.  He  then  made 
use  of  the  statements  of  Jerome  concerning  the  three  families 
of  Greek  recensions  and  assumed  that,  of  these  three  families, 
the  Lucianic  would  be  the  one  most  likely  to  be  used  by  Chrysos- 
tom and  Theodoret.  He  also  found  that,  as  far  as  he  was  able 
to  compare,  the  Gothic  variants  were  supported  by  the  same 
group  of  codices.  This  led  him  to  construct  the  text  published 
by  him  as  the  Lucianic  recension. 

An  examination  of  Lagarde 's  work  shows  that  there  is  no 
exact  agreement  between  the  manuscripts  upon  which  he  based 
his  text.  The  following  examples  from  Ex.  1 : 1-10  will  suffice 
to  illustrate : 

1      tio-rjXOoo-av    B      ewnyAflov  19.  108. 

4  Ne<£0aAi         B      Ne^flaAa/x      19.  108. 

5  i/^xai  B      at  i/^x<u  19.   82.   108.   118. 
9      CITTC  Se            B      KCU  eiTre             19.  108. 

e#vei  B      yevet  108. 

14  p.  Ixxxvii. 


170  JOURNAL    OP   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 


yevos  B  e$vos  19.  108.  118. 

/xeya  B  /xeya  TTO\V  118.  Com. 

10      TrXrjOvvr)  B  TrXiyOvvuHriv  19.  108.  118. 

ovrot  B  avroi  19.  108.  Com. 

yrjs  B  yr;s  >;/x,toi/  19.  108.  118. 


Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  single  manuscript  which 
gives  all  the  readings  adopted  by  Lagarde.  Codex  82  is  closely 
related  to  B  in  the  Pentateuch,  while  93  does  not  contain  the 
Pentateuch.  Of  the  others  it  will  be  noted  that,  out  of  ten  read- 
ings adopted  by  Lagarde,  two  are  not  given  by  19,  one  is  not 
given  by  108,  while  five  are  not  given  by  118  and  the  Compluten- 
sian  gives  only  two.  At  best,  then,  Lagarde 's  text  is  but  a  ten- 
tatively hypothetical  restoration  of  what  may  have  been  the  text 
approximating  that  of  Lucian. 

An  examination  of  his  comparisons  with  the  readings  of 
Chrysostom  shows  no  closer  agreement.  Codices  19 . 93 . 108 . 118 
in  the  main  support  the  readings  of  Chrysostom,  but  every  one 
of  them  is  absent  occasionally,  while  82  very  seldom  agrees.  The 
result,  then,  is  but  tentative  and  hypothetical,  although  as  a 
tentative  hypothesis  it  has  not  been  displaced. 

The  important  fact  is  that  Lagarde  and  Field,  working  inde- 
pendently of  each  other  and  on  entirely  different  lines,  reached 
practically  the  same  conclusions,  excepting  the  fact  that  Field 
makes  no  mention  of  codex  118  which  Lagarde  found  so 
important. 

It  had  been  the  intention  of  Lagarde  to  publish  a  second  part 
containing  the  remaining  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  his 
death  in  1891  left  his  work  unfinished  and  no  scholar  has  since 
undertaken  the  task.  Field,  however,  laid  the  f6undation  for 
the  study  of  the  Lucianic  version  of  the  prophets.  Upon  the 
basis  of  the  similarity  between  readings  of  Theodoret  and  the 
group  of  codices  22.36.48.51.62.90.147.231.233,  he  classified 
these  codices  in  the  same  family.  Oomparison  of  marginal  notes 
on  codex  86  indicated  by  the  symbol  X  showed  kinship  with 
this  group,  to  which  he  therefore  assigned  Lucianic  influence. 

Cornill,  in  the  Prolegomena  to  his  Ezechiel,  published  in  1886, 
discussed  the  subject  at  length  and  came  to  certain  definite  con- 
clusions, as  far  as  Ezekiel  was  concerned.  He  agreed  with  Field 
in  attributing  the  group  22.36.48.51.231  to  Lucianic  influence. 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         171 

To  this  group  he  added  the  fragment  called  Zc  which  contains 
but  a  small  portion  of  Ezekiel.  He  rejected  62.90.147.233 
because  sie  theilen  mit  Lucian  erne  Anzahl  von  hexaplarischen 
Zus'dtsen,  gel) en  aber  nicht  die  Recension  Lucians. 

The  most  recent  investigation  of  the  subject  has  been  pursued 
by  Dr.  Otto  Procksch  of  Greifswald15  who  divides  the  manu- 
scripts into  three  general  groups  which  he  styles  the  Hexaplaric, 
the  Prehexaplaric  and  the  Lucianic.  In  Jeremiah  he  assigns 
33.87.91.228  (41.49.90)  to  the  first  group.  To  the  second 
group  he  assigns  26 . 86 . 106 . 198 . 233 . 239 .  (41 . 49 . 90) .  To  the 
Lucianic  group  he  assigns  22.36.48.51.96.144.229.231. 

The  grouping  by  the  several  scholars  of  the  manuscripts  which 
are  said  by  them  to  show  more  or  less  of  Lucianic  influence  may 
be  summarized  as  follows : 

Field  22.36.48.51.62.90.93.         144.147.  231.233.308 

Cornill  22.36.48.51.  231 

Klostermann  48.         62.  147.  231 

Nestle  22.36.48.51.62.90.93.         144.147.  233.308 

Liebmann  22.36.48.51.62.90.93.          144.147.  233 

Procksch  22 .  36 .  48 .  51 .  96 .  144 .  229 .  231 

Burkitt  22.  36.  48.  51.  96.  229.  231 

In  determining  those  texts  of  the  prophets  which  show  traces 
of  Lucianic  influence  and  which  would  therefore  be  of  assistance 
in  restoring  the  Lucianic  text,  the  work  of  Lagarde  in  the 
Octateuch  is  of  real  service.  Lagarde 's  text  is  a  hypothetical 
restoration  of  the  Lucianic  recension  and  the  critical  apparatus 
is  given  only  in  the  book  of  Esther.  For  the  purposes  of  the 
present  study,  however,  it  will  be  assumed  that  it  approximates 
the  text  of  Lucian. 

Two  passages  in  4  Kings,  to  which  reference  has  already 
been  made,  are  reproduced  practically  verbatim  in  the  Masoretic 
texts  of  the  prophets.  4  Kings  19  : 1-6  =  Isaiah  37 : 1-6  and 
4  Kings  24 : 18-25  :  8  =  Jeremiah  52  : 1-12. 

In  the  first  pair  of  passages  there  are  twenty-eight  instances 
in  which  the  B  text  of  Kings  differs  from  that  of  Isaiah 
while  the  Masoretic  texts  are  alike.  In  seventeen  of  these 
twenty-eight  instances,  the  text  of  Lagarde  agrees  with  the  B 
text  of  Kings.  Of  the  eleven  variants  between  B  and 
Lagarde 's  text,  four  of  the  readings  of  Lagarde  agree  with  the 

15  Studien  zur  Geschichte  der  Septuaginta,  1910. 


17  "2  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

B  text  of  Isaiah.  Three  of  Lagarde's  readings  are  sui  generis, 
while  the  remaining  four  are  confirmed  in  Isaiah  by  four  or  more 
members  of  the  group  22 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 62 . 90 . 144 . 147 . 228 . 233 . 308. 

In  Kings  there  are  fourteen  readings  of  Lagarde  which 
vary  from  B.  Four  of  these  agree  with  all  the  texts  of  Isaiah ; 
six  are  sui  generis  readings  of  Lagarde,  while  four  are  confirmed 
in  Isaiah  by  members  of  the  group  Q. 22. 36. 48. 51. 62. 90. 91. 
144 . 147 . 198 . 228 . 308 .  Comp. 

In  Isaiah  there  are  seventeen  readings  in  which  two  or  more 
members  of  the  group  Q-Comp.  give  a  reading  different  from 
that  of  B.  Six  of  these  agree  with  all  the  texts  of  Kings; 
two  agree  with  the  B  text  of  Kings  as  against  Lagarde;  five 
are  sui  generis  readings;  four  are  confirmed  in  Kings  by  the 
text  of  Lagarde. 

From  this  comparison  it  would  seem  that  some  of  the  manu- 
scripts forming  the  group  Q-Comp.  give  evidence  of  the  same 
influence  which  is  seen  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Octateuch  which 
Lagarde  called  Lucianic. 

In  the  second  pair  of  passages  there  are  forty-seven  instances 
in  which  the  B  text  of  Kings  differs  from  that  of  Jeremiah. 
In  twenty-four  of  these  the  text  of  Lagarde  agrees  with  the  B 
text  of  Kings.  In  the  remaining  twenty-three  instances  there 
are  nine  cases  in  which  Lagarde's  reading  agrees  with  all 
the  texts  of  Jeremiah,  one  in  which  it  agrees  with  the  B  text 
alone,  and  six  in  which  it  is  supported  by  members  of  the  group 
Q.  22.  26. 36. 48. 51. 62. 88. 90. 91. 96. 106. 144. 198. 228. 231. 233. 
239.  Comp. 

In  the  same  pair  of  passages  there^are  thirty-three  instances 
in  which  Lagarde's  reading  differs  from  the  B  text  of  Kings. 
Of  these  there  are  five  instances  in  which  the  B  text  is  supported 
by  all  the  texts  of  Jeremiah,  ten  in  which  Lagarde's  reading  is 
supported  by  all  the  texts  of  Jeremiah,  eleven  in  which  Lagarde 
gives  a  sui  generis  reading  and  seven  in  which  Lagarde  is 
supported  by  members  of  the  group  Q-C. 

At  the  same  time  there  are  twenty-four  places  in  which  mem- 
bers of  the  group  Q-Com.  give  a  different  reading  from  that  of 
the  B  text  of  Jeremiah.  Four  of  these  are  in  agreement  with  all 
the  texts  of  Kings,  eleven  are  sui  generis  readings  and  seven 
are  supported  by  Lagarde.  These  seven  readings  are  given  by 
the  following  texts : 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT  173 

22.       36.48.51.62.  96.  198.         231.  52:1 

22.       36.48.51.62.88.90.91.96.         144.198.228.231.233.239.Q.Com.A.  52:1 

22.       36.48.  96.  52:1 

26.36.       51.62.88.90.       96.         144.198.228.         233.239.     Com.A.  52:4 

22.       36.48.51.62.  96.  198.         231.  52:4 

22.26.36.48.51.62.       90.91.96.106.144.198.228.         233.         Q.Com.A.  52:12 

36.48.51.62.  91.96.106.         198.228.231.  A. 


The  classification  of  the  variant  readings  gives  the  first  step 
toward  the  grouping  of  the  manuscripts.  For  this  I  have 
examined  the  text  of  Jeremiah  1-3,  noting  the  variant  readings 
of  Q.  A.  Comp.  22.26.36.48.51.62.88.90.91.96.106.144.198. 
228.229.231.233.239.  and  Theodoret.  This  study  is  based 
upon  the  collation  of  Parsons  which  scholars  have  all  recognized 
as  very  faulty.  I  have  compared  his  collation  of  A  and  Q  with 
those  of  Swete  and  have  found  errors  on  every  page.  On  the 
other  hand,  Swete  's  collation  is  far  from  faultless,  so  that  final 
results  can  be  obtained  only  by  a  study  of  the  manuscripts 
themselves  or  of  photographic  plates.  Parsons'  collation  of  the 
readings  of  Theodoret  I  have  compared  carefully  with  Theodo- 
ret 's  Commentary  upon  Jeremiah,  and  the  numerous  errors  of 
Parsons  are  only  errors  of  omission. 

There  are,  in  the  first  three  chapters  of  Jeremiah,  four  classes 
of  variations  which  are  here  given  in  detail. 

I.     Agreement  with  the  Masoretic  text  against  other  Greek 
texts. 

II.     General  agreement  of  Greek  texts  against  the  Masoretic. 

III.  Difference  from  both  the  Masoretic  and  other  Greek  texts. 

IV.  Difference  from  other  Greek  texts  in  Greek. 

I.     Agreement  with  the  Masoretic  text. 
1.     Exact  restoration  of  omissions. 

a.  Proper  names. 

1  :  11  Practically  all  the  manuscripts  collated 
by  Parsons  agree  in  this  restoration. 

b.  Substantives  and  adjectives. 

1:3;  2:6;  2:19;  3:11  22.36.48.51.96.231 
are  constant.  62  and  88  agree  three  times; 
228  twice  ;  144  .  198  .  229  .  233  .  239  each  once. 

c.  Pronouns. 

1:16;  1:17;  1:18;  2:21;  2:28  Nearly  all  the 
manuscripts  occur.  22  .  36  .  48  .  51  .  62  alone  are 


174  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

constant.     88  agrees  in  all  but  one  and  gives 
one  in  2 : 2  where  it  is  alone  with  Q. 

d.  Verbs. 

1 :  4 ;  1 :  19  All  the  manuscripts  appear.  22 . 
36 . 48 . 51 . 62 . 88 . 96 . 231  are  constant.  In  3  : 1 
is  a  restoration  given  only  by  Q. 88. 233. 

e.  Conjunctions. 

1 :  3  Restoration  given  by  22 . 26 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 62 . 
88.96.144.231. 

f .  Phrases,  clauses  and  verses. 

1:11;  1:13;  1:16;  2:1;  2:2;  2:9;  2:17;  3:7; 
3:8;  3:10..;  3:16..;  3:17  The  constants 
are  36.48.51.96.231.  22  and  62  each  occur 
in  every  instance  but  one.  26.88.106.144. 
228.229.233  agree  occasionally.  In  2:9  all 
the  manuscripts  agree. 

g.  Particles. 

2:15;  2:16  The  constants  are  36.48.96.231; 
22.51.229  each  once. 

2.  Partial  restoration  of  omissions. 

1:13;  2:25  22.36.48.51.62.96.229.231  constant ; 
unaccompanied  by  others. 

3.  Person  and  number. 

1:4;  3:6;  3 : 11  The  last  two  are  supported  by 
most  of  the  manuscripts.  In  the  first  only  51.88. 
90. 91. 106. 198. 233.  Comp. 

4.  Correction  of  different  reading  or  mistranslation  by 

other  texts. 

2:6;  2:11;  3:2;  3:25     22.51.62.96.231  constant. 
36  and  48  each  agree  three  times.     88 . 90 . 91 . 106 . 
144. 228. 239. A  once  each.     198.229.233  twice. 
II.     Agreement  of  Greek  texts  against  the  Masoretic. 

The  evidential  value  of  these  instances  is  chiefly  nega- 
tive.    They  illustrate  the  fact  that  none  of  the  Greek 
texts  is  in  complete  agreement  with  the  Masoretic.     The 
instances  are  of  interest  chiefly  as  showing  exceptions 
to  the  preceding  class. 
1.     Retention  of  omissions. 
1:18;    2:7;    2:30;    2:34. 


YERKES:     LUGIANIC    VERSION    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         175 

2.  Retention  of  plus. 

1:1,  9,  15,  18 ;  2:1,  10,  13,  19,  23,  28,  29,  30,  31 ; 
3 : 6,  7,  8,  12,  17,  18,  21. 

3.  Person  and  number. 

1:2;  2 : 1,  11,  12,  18,  20,  25,  30 ;  3 : 13,  18,  19. 

4.  Spelling  of  proper  names. 
1:2;   2:18. 

5.  Different  reading  or  mistranslation. 

1 : 7,  14,  15,  17 ;  2 : 2,  6,  13,  19,  24,  26,  29,  31,  33,  34 ; 
3 : 1,  4,  7,  8,  15,  19,  20,  22. 

III.  Difference  from  both  Masoretic  and  other  Greek  texts. 

1.  Additions. 

1:8,  2:2,  6,  8,  9,  12,  14,  28,  31 ;  3:2,  20,  22,  23, 
24,  26,  27,  29  No  constant.  22.36.51.96  are 
omitted  each  once.  48  and  231  omitted  twice.  62 
omitted  three  times.  The  others  occur  irregularly. 

2.  Omissions. 

26 . 48 . 51 . 106  occur  each  once  and  alone.  22 . 48 . 51 . 
96.231  agree  in  3:2.  48.51.62.96.106.144.231 
agree  in  3:24.  26.90.91.198.228  agree  in  1:8. 
The  other  omissions  are  chiefly  in  229  which  is  so 
fragmentary  that  the  omissions  signify  nothing. 

3.  Miscellaneous. 

2 :  3,  14,  31,  34 ;  3 :  22,  24  The  constants  are  22 . 48 . 
51.231.  36.96.229  are  omitted  once  each.  26. 
88.90.106.144.233  occur  twice;  the  others  once 
each. 

IV.  Differences  from  the  other  Greek  texts  in  Greek. 

1.  Declension  of  proper  names. 

1 :  2,  3 . . . ;  3  :  22  But  little  agreement.  106  the  only 
one  absent.  88 . 144 .  Comp.  agree  in  four  instances. 
48 . 96 . 231  occur  four  times  each  and  agree  in  three. 

2.  Form  of  verb. 

1:2,7,19;  2  : 11. .,  16,  22,  33  ;  3:17,24  96  is  the 
only  constant.  36  and  231  appear  in  every 
instance  but  one.  51  occurs  in  all  but  two.  22 
and  48  in  all  but  three.  62.144.229  occur  with 
a  fair  degree  of  regularity.  90  occurs  twice, 
once  with  88  and  once  with  91. 
12 


176  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

3.  Second  aorist  ending. 

1:6,11,13,17;  2:5,6,8,17;  3:2,7,19..  22.36. 
48.51.96  constant.  231  appears  in  every  instance 
but  one.  62  agrees  six  times;  144  and  229  seven 
times  each;  233  five  times;  198  and  228  twice 
each.  No  others. 

4.  Different  spelling. 

1:18;  2:3,8,13,21;  3:5  36.48.51.62.96.144. 
229.231  agree  five  times.  22  and  106  occur  four 
times.  All  others  appear  once  or  twice. 

5.  Use  of  particles. 

1:7..;  2:6,  10;  3:8,  12,  25  22.36.48.231  agree 
in  all  instances ;  26 . 62 . 144  in  six ;  90 . 91 . 96  occur 
in  four  each ;  the  others  once  or  twice. 

6.  Vocabulary. 

1 :  10 ;  2 :  3  . . . ,  7,  10,  15  ;  3  :  5,  7,  13  22.51.96  agree 
in  all;  48.229  in  all  but  one;  231  in  all  but  one: 
36  in  all  but  two ;  144  in  all  but  three.  The  others 
appear  irregularly. 

7.  Omissions. 

2 :  27      22 . 36 . 48 . 96 . 231 . 233  agree. 

8.  Order  of  words. 

1:13,  15,  16,  19;  2:5,  27,  35;  3:9,  17  22.36.48. 
62 . 96  agree  in  all ;  231  in  all  but  one ;  51.88. 144 . 
198 . 229 . 233  occur  irregularly ;  26  twice ;  90 . 106 . 
228  each  once. 

9.  Miscellaneous. 

1:2;  2  :  8,  28,  32  . . . ;  3  :  12  96.231  constant.  36. 
48  in  all  but  one  instance ;  62  in  all  but  one ;  51 . 
144.229  each  in  all  but  two;  22  three  times ;  106. 
233  each  once;  no  others  occur. 

In  the  preceding  analysis  the  agreement  between  22.36.48. 
51.96.231  is  so  general  as  to  warrant  the  grouping  of  these 
manuscripts  together  as  descendants  of  a  common  parent.  This 
same  grouping  is  also  found,  on  page  170,  of  the  texts  with  which 
Lagarde  agrees.  For  the  purposes  of  abbreviation  I  shall  call 
this  group  L.16  Of  the  texts  which  constitute  this  group,  the 

36  This  study,  and  the  conclusions  drawn  from  it,  were  made  before  I 
had  seen  Procksch's  Septuaginta  Studien.  It  was  at  first  somewhat  sur- 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT         177 

first  four  have  been  classified  by  all  scholars  since  Field  as 
unquestionably  Lucianic,  and  the  evidence  from  the  present  study 
simply  confirms  this  opinion.  Nestle  and  Liebmann  were  the 
only  ones  who  did  not  include  231  in  the  group. 

Codex  96  is  described  by  Parsons  as  follows:17  Codex  Hexa- 
plaris,  ex  Bibliotheca  cl.  Moldenhaweri  Hafniensis.  Continet  4 
Prophetas  Majores;  quantivis,  ut  videtur,  pretii.  Nevertheless 
it  was  collated  only  in  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations,  and  accurate 
studies  have  not  been  made  of  it.  In  Jeremiah  its  readings 
practically  coincide  with  those  of  22 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 231 ;  its  absences 
are  fewer  than  those  of  any  of  the  others  and  it  has  fewer  sui 
generis  readings  than  any  of  the  group.  Burkitt18  called  it 
Lucianic  but  gave  no  evidence  for  the  classification.  Procksch 
gives  but  a  few  readings  from  it  in  Jeremiah  alone ;  he  includes 
it  in  the  list  of  Lucianic  manuscripts  at  the  head  of  his  collations 
of  The  Twelve  but  does  not  quote  it  once.  The  collations  in 
Parsons  indicate  96  not  only  as  a  Lucianic  text,  but  as  the  best 
Lucianic  manuscript  for  Jeremiah. 

Codex  229  contains  the  text  of  Theodoret's  Commentary  on 
Jeremiah.  It  is  very  fragmentary  and  there  are  many  lacunae 
in  it,  but  as  far  as  can  be  judged  its  readings  agree  in  the  main 
with  those  of  L  with  which  it  should  be  grouped. 

62  was  classed  as  Lucianic  by  all  the  earlier  scholars  except 
Cornill.  Procksch  finds  it  with  all  three  of  his  groups  but 
mostly  with  the  Lucianic;  nevertheless  he  declines  to  class  it 
with  this  group.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  codex  is  present  with 
the  group  oftener  than  not  and  it  occurs  more  frequently  than 
144  which  Procksch  classes  as  Lucianic.  On  the  other  hand  it 
shares  a  number  of  sui  generis  readings19  with  144  with  which 
it  should  be  classed. 

Field,  Liebmann,  Nestle  and  Procksch  all  class  144  as  Lucianic. 
Like  62  the  codex  occurs  with  L  oftener  than  not  but  its  numer- 
ous absences  are  worthy  of  note.  In  the  64  selections  of  Lucianic 
readings  given  by  Procksch  144  occurs  only  eight  times,  while 

prising,  but  not  a  little  gratifying,  to  find  that  Procksch  came  to  exactly 
the  same  conclusions,  although  his  studies  had  been  pursued  upon  a  different 
line  and  by  a  different  method. 

17  Praefatio  ad  Jeremiam. 

18  The  Old  Latin  and  the  Itala,  p.  9.     Wrongly  quoted  by  Swete  as  p.  91. 
19 In  Jer.  1-3  these  are  1:  5;    2:  9;    2:  14;    2:  15;    3:  1. 


178  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL    LITERATURE 

22.36.48.51.96.231  are  almost  constant.  The  variations  given 
by  144  are  largely  Lucianic  but  the  text  is  far  from  a  reliable 
witness  to  Lucianic  readings. 

Comparing  L  with  the  Masoretic  text  on  the  one  hand  and  with 
the  family  of  texts  represented  by  B  on  the  other,  these  facts  are 
important : 

1.  In  the  Masoretic  text  of  Jer.  1-3  there  are  33  instances  of 
readings   absent   from   the   majority    of    Greek   texts.      In    29 
instances  L  supplies  this  material;    in  four  instances  L  agrees 
with  the  other  Greek  texts. 

2.  In  every  one  of  the  20  instances  in  which  the  Greek  texts 
supply  material  absent  from  the  Masoretic,  L  agrees  with  the 
Greek  texts. 

3.  In  28  instances  the  Greek  texts  are  either  mistranslations 
or  translations  based  upon  a  reading  different  from  the  Masoretic. 
In  23  of  these  L  agrees  with  the  Greek  texts;    in  5  it  follows 
the  Masoretic. 

4.  In  14  instances  the  Greek  texts  give  a  different  person  or 
number  from  that  of  the  Masoretic.     In  11  of  these  L  follows  the 
Greek  texts  while  in  three  it  follows  the  Masoretic. 

5.  In  11  instances  L  furnishes  material  found  in  neither  the 
Greek  texts  nor  the  Masoretic,  while  in  two  instances  L  omits 
material  found  in  both  the  Greek  texts  and  the  Masoretic. 

The  editor  of  the  parent  text  of  L  appears  to  have  used  as  the 
basis  of  his  work  a  Greek  text  somewhat  similar  to  the  family 
represented  by  B  although  differing  from  it  in  many  details. 
For  purposes  of  correction  he  seems  to  have  used  a  Hebrew 
manuscript,  or  manuscripts,  approximating  the  present  Masoretic 
text  although  differing  slightly  from  it.  His  assumption  was 
that,  in  process  of  copying,  much  material  had  been  omitted 
from  both  the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew  manuscripts,  but  that  none 
had  been  added  in  either.  Therefore,  in  his  resultant  text  he 
retained  all  the  Greek  pluses  and  restored  all  the  Hebrew  pluses. 
This  method  naturally  gave  rise  to  conflate  readings,  and  such 
will  be  found  in  the  text,  e.  g.,  2:2  and  2 : 25.  The  changes 
which  he  made  in  the  Greek  were  all  stylistic  or  rhetorical, 
designed  to  make  more  euphonious  reading  for  those  for  whom 
he  did  his  work.  In  Jer.  1-3  the  following  are  to  be  noted : 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OP    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         179 

(1)  Form  of  verb  1:7;  2  :  16  ;  3  :  17  and  the  numerous  restor- 
ation of  classical  second  aorist  endings  to  which  attention  has 
already  been  called. 

(2)  Spelling  2:13;  3:5. 

(3)  Vocabulary  2:3;  3:7,  13. 

(4)  Order  of  words  1  :  18,  19  ;   2:5;   3:9. 

(5)  Gender  2:  7,  28. 

(6)  Classical  use  of  genitive  2  :  32  ;   3  :  12. 

These  characteristics  can  all  be  explained  by  the  assumption  that 
the  editor  of  the  parent  text  of  L  was  Lucian  of  Antioch. 

What  Lucian  did  was  probably  to  take  the  group  of  manu- 
scripts at  his  disposal,  carefully  compare  them  with  other  works 
to  which  he  had  access  (including  that  of  Origen),  and  at  the 
same  time  compare,  with  the  aid  of  Dorotheus,  the  Hebrew  texts 
at  hand.  He  then  endeavored  to  give  a  more  or  less  uniform 
translation  of  the  Bible  as  he  knew  it.  This  text,  together  with 
the  more  or  less  accurate  copies  made  from  it,  became  a  sort 
of  Authorized  Version  for  the  region  from  Antioch  to  Constan- 
tinople, especially  for  the  men  of  the  Antiochene  School  and 
for  the  early  Arians. 

The  Lucianic  recension  indicates  that  the  Hebrew  text  was 
not  yet  fixed  at  the  close  of  the  third  century,  although  it  had 
assumed  by  that  time  a  form  closely  resembling  the  present 
Masoretic.  The  majority  of  instances  in  which  Lucian  supplied 
Hebrew  pluses  to  the  Greek  text  are  supported  also  by  hexaplaric 
readings.  These  additions  were  therefore  in  existence  by  the 
year  250.  In  Jeremiah  1-3,  however,  there  are  four  readings  of 
Lucian  supported  by  the  Masoretic  text  but  unnoticed  by  Origen. 
These  readings  are  : 

1  :  16    K/oto-cw?  pay.    Masoretic  =  'CDfifiPQ  .     Other  Greek  texts  = 


2  :  25     avSpiovfjuiL   ov   ftov\ofuu.     Masoretic  =  iff?    t^NU  .     Other 

Greek  texts  =  avSpuwfjuu.     Here  Lucian  does  not  give  an 
exact  restoration  but  indicates  a  different  reading. 
3:7      rj  a$€\<f>rj  avTys.    Masoretic  =  nrnnK  .     Other  Greek  texts 
omit. 

3  :  17     TO)  OVOJMITI  Kv/oiov  cts  lepovaraXrjjj,.     Masoretic  = 

Other  Greek  texts  omit. 


180  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

It  would  seem  that  these  additions  came  into  the  Hebrew  text 
some  time  between  the  years  250  and  300,  that  is,  between  Origen 
and  Lrucian. 

There  are,  in  the  same  three  chapters  four  Masoretic  pluses 
which  were  not  noticed  by  Lucian.     These  are  as  follows  : 

1  :  18     Y  "^H  ^D  ty      Omitted  by  Greek  texts. 

2  :  7     ^ETOil  jHN  •      Greek  texts  read 
2  :  30     DDDIH  .     Greek  texts  read 

2  :  34    D"p3  DOVDN  •     Greek  texts  read 

This  would  indicate  that  these  additions  had  not  come  into  the 
Hebrew  text  by  300,  or  at  least  that  their  reading  was  not 
general. 

There  are  also  six  instances  in  which  Lucian  gives  a  plus  over 
both  the  other  Greek  texts  and  the  Masoretic.     These  are  : 

2:12      ,   yr,. 

2  :  31 

3  :  2 

3  :  20      /cat  Iov8a. 
3  :  22      cyto. 
3  :  24     /cat 


In  2  :  34  Lucian  reads  a  second  person  where  both  the  other 
Greek  texts  and  the  Masoretic  read  a  first  person. 

All  these  Lucianic  pecularities  indicate  a  Hebrew  text  which 
was  yet  in  process  of  formation,  but  which,  in  the  two  or  three 
generations  after  the  time  of  Origen,  had  approached  more 
closely  its  final  form  as  represented  in  the  Masoretic  text. 

In  addition  to  those  manuscripts  which  have  been  classified  as 
Lucianic  there  is  another  group  of  texts  showing  strong  rela- 
tionship with  L  but  differing  from  it  in  many  details.  26.88. 
90.  91.  106.  198.  228.  233.  239.  Q.A.  and  the  Complutensian  Poly- 
glot (abbreviated  as  Co.)  often  appear  with  L,  are  often  regularly 
absent  from  L,  and  appear  alone  in  the  following  thirteen  places 
in  Jer.  1-3  : 

1:2       Q.  26.88.  106. 

1:4      Q.A.Co.       88.90.91.106.         198.228.233.230. 

1:8       Q.      Co.  26.       90.91.  198.228. 


YERKES!     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         181 

1:8  Q.            26.       90.91.                 198. 

2:10  88.90.91.106.         198.228.233. 

2:21  90.91. 

2:24  91.         144.         228. 

2:31  Q.             26.88.90.91.                         228.233. 

3:1  Q.                  88.                                           233. 

3:6  26.       90.91.         144. 

3:10  90.        106.                          233. 

3:12  Q.             26.88.90.91.106.144.198.228.233. 

3:12  Q.             26.88.90.91.106.144.198.228.233. 

88  has  been  generally  regarded  as  hexaplaric.  Cornill  found 
it  akin  to  the  Syro-Hexaplar.  It  occurs  quite  often  with  L  when 
no  other  manuscript  is  found,  and  upon  the  assumption  of  its 
hexaplaric  ancestry  its  occurrences  can  be  explained. 

26  has  been  generally  classed  as  of  Hesychian  descent  although 
no  direct  evidence  has  yet  been  found  which  gives  definite  aid 
in  identifying  the  Hesychian  recension.  The  regular  appearance 
of  26  in  Jeremiah  with  Q. 90. 91. 106. 233,  both  with  and  without 
L,  suggests  that  it  should  be  grouped  with  these  texts. 

Cornill  groups  49.68.87.90.91.228.238  as  Hesychian  in  Eze- 
kiel  and  one  cannot  fail  to  note  the  similarity  between  this  group 
and  Q. 26. 90. 91. 106. 198. 228. 233  which  are  kindred  in  Jere- 
miah. Ceriani  considered  26.106.198.306  as  Hesychian. 
Procksch  classes  26.86.106.198.233.239.306  as  prehexaplaric 
and  assigns  91  to  the  hexaplaric  group20  while  90'  is  assigned  to 
both.  Of  the  hexaplaric  group  he  says,  Hier  tritt  ndmlich  als 
vornehmster  und  greifbarster  Charakterzug  eine  enge  Beziehung 
zum  Typus  AQ  hervor.  For  purposes  of  abbreviation  I  shall 
call  the  group  Q. 26. 90. 91. 106. 233  by  the  initial  letters  He 
because  of  the  possible  connection  between  them  and  the 
Hesychian  recension. 

198  and  228  rightly  belong  with  this  group  but  give  in  a  few 
places  readings  that  are  peculiar  to  L.21  Cornill  classed  228 
with  this  group  and  in  general  this  classification  is  supported 
by  the  readings  in  Jeremiah.  Klostermann,  however,  noted22 

20  Procksch  has  erred  here ;    90  and  91  should  be  classed  together. 

21  e.  g.,  second  aorist  endings  2:  8,  27;    3 :  2,  7. 

22  Analecta,  p.  13. 


182  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

that  in  many  instances  228  seemed  to  follow  Lucianic  readings 
and  he  suggested  that  the  manuscript  originally  belonged  to  an 
Hesychian  group  but  that  it  had  been  corercted  later  from  a 
Lucianic  text.  From  the  readings  in  Jeremiah  this  is  the  most 
satisfactory  explanation  offered  for  this  text. 

The  Complutensian  Polyglot  was  classed  by  Lagarde  with  the 
Lucianic  texts  although  the  evidence  for  this  is  far  from  con- 
vincing. In  Jeremiah  whenever  it  agrees  with  L  there  are  always 
present  one  or  more  members  of  He  while  it  often  agrees  with 
He  when  no  member  of  L  is  present. 

The  accompanying  diagram  represents  a  suggested  lineage  of 
certain  of  the  groups  of  texts  with  which  we  have  been  dealing, 
and  an  endeavor  to  show  their  relationship  to  the  Masoretic,  the 
Vatican  and  the  Alexandrine  texts. 

At  first  there  were  a  number  of  Hebrew  texts  the  number  and 
exact  content  of  which  will  never  be  known.  Probably  no  two 
of  these  texts  agreed.  Some  were  copied  and  transmitted  in 
Hebrew ;  others  were  translated  into  Greek.  With  each  recopy- 
ing  and  translation  there  were  omissions,  additions  and  altera- 
tions. The  first  Greek  texts  that  represent  an  endeavor  at  uni- 
form translation  were  those  of  Aquila,  Theodotion  and  Sym- 
machus,  all  of  which,  together  with  some  Hebrew  manuscripts, 
were  used  by  Origen  who  represents  the  first  effort  to  produce 
a  critical  text.  At  the  same  time  uncritical  texts  were  copied 
and  recopied.  The  descendants  of  these  can  be  found  in  B 
and  A. 

To  explain  the  connection  between  L  and  He,  as  well  as  the 
hexaplaric  influences  in  both,  I  have  suggested  a  parent  text, 
abbreviated  as  PT,  which  must  have  been  the  basic  text  with 
which  Lucian  worked  and  upon  which  he  made  h'is  corrections, 
as  well  as  the  basic  text  from  which  was  prepared  the  recension 
from  which  the  group  He  is  descended.  This  must  have  been 
an  uncritical  text.  Traces  of  influences  at  work  both  in  B  and 
A  are  found  in  it.  The  anonymous  writer  in  The  Church  Quar- 
terly Review2*  pointed  out  the  irregularity  with  which  readings 
pronounced  Lucianic  in  the  Octateuch  agree  with  B  or  with  A 
or  with  neither  of  them.  This  fact  is  also  noticeable  in  the 
prophets  and  is  just  as  true  of  He,  both  with  and  without  L; 
it  can  be  explained  only  upon  the  basis  of  a  common  uncritical 

28  Jan.,  1901,  p.  388. 


SUGGESTED  LINEAGE  OP  SOME  GROUPS  OF  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS. 


Earl  y       H  e  b 


Earl  y    G  r   e  e  K     t  r  a  n    3   1  a  t    lone 


Aquila       J£ 


n 


0  r   i  g  i 


Parent   text 


Lucian  of  Antioch 

I   J  I  I  I    I    i 

22  36  ts  51  96  229  23 


A 


Hesychius      7 


•U 

62   14-4  19S|_ 


I      )       if  n f 

p      Co«P26  90  91   106 


Masoretic 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC   VERSION    OP    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         183 

parent  text.  After  the  appearance  of  the  Hexapla  of  Origen, 
and  before  the  work  of  Lucian,  that  is,  between  the  years  250 
and  300,  copies  of  this  text  must  have  been  made.  This  would 
be  the  only  explanation  of  Origenic  influence  in  both  L  and  He. 
That  this  text  was  not  the  Hexapla  itself  is  evidenced  by  the 
fact  that  both  L  and  He  give  readings  not  supported  by  Origeniu 
texts.  Instances  of  these  readings  are  as  follows : 

3:2      eprjiJioviJLevrj  B.      ev  ep^/xw  juony          L.He.A.Co. 

3:6      tTTOpevOrjvav  B.      tTropevOr)  L.He.Q.Co. 

3:8      on  B.      Stem  L.He. 

2 :  8     vo^ov  B.     vonov  fjiov  L .  He .  Q .  A . 

This  is  an  interesting  case  of  a  simple  dittographic  mistake 
in  an  early  text  of  the  A  family,  copied  in  PT  and  recopied  by 
both  L  and  He  but  corrected  by  Origen. 

PT  served  as  the  text  of  Lucian  who,  at  the  same  time,  had 
access  to  the  text  of  Origen,  as  well  as  to  some  Hebrew  text  or 
texts.  The  same  text  served  as  the  base  of  He,  the  author  of 
which  made  other  corrections  suggested  by  some  source  as  yet 
unknown.  These  texts  have  been  transmitted  in  the  following 
groups : 

L  =  22. 36. 48. 51. 96. 229. 231. 
L2  =  62 . 144.     Based  upon  Lucian,  but  not  as  faithful  transmis 

sions. 
He  =  26 . 90 . 91 . 106 . 233.     Kinship  not  so  close,  but  close  enough 

for  grouping. 
198  and  228  may  have  been  based  upon  a  text  belonging  to  He, 

but  they  were  both  corrected  from  a  text  of  the  L  family. 

The  readings  and  variations  in  Jeremiah  1-3  may  be  classed 
thus: 

1.  Readings  common  to  L,  L2  and  He.     The  source  of  these 
is  to  be  found  in  PT  and  is  often  hexaplaric. 

2.  Readings  common  to  L  and  L2,  to  be  traced  to  Lucianic 
influence. 

3.  Readings  peculiar  to  L,  likewise  Lucianic. 

4.  Readings  common  to  L2  and  He,  due  to  PT  readings  cor- 
rected by  L. 

5.  Readings  peculiar  to  He.     The  source  of  these  cannot  be 
determined  at  present,  but  if  Cornill  is  right  in  his  deductions 


184  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

from  comparisons  with  Cyrill  of  Alexandria,  Hesychian  influence 
is  strongly  indicated. 

Whether  any  of  these  readings  is  peculiar  or  due  to  hexaplaric 
influence  must  be  determined  in  each  individual  instance  by 
comparison  with  recognized  hexaplaric  authorities. 

The  chief  value  of  the  Greek  versions  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  the  aid  which  they  give  in  determining  the  quantity  of  the 
first  Hebrew  text,  its  vocabulary  and  the  form  and  meaning  of 
its  words.  For  the  first  of  these  purposes  the  value  of  the 
Lucianic  version  is  entirely  negative.  In  1886  Nestle  wrote, 
Die  Recension  des  Lucianus,  auf  deren  Herstellung  nach  einer 
mir  unbegreiflichen  Weise  Lagarde  zundchst  seine  Bemuhungen 
gerichtet  hat,  ist  gerade  die  uribraudibarste  fur  diejenigen 
Zwecke  fur  welche  wir  die  LXX  am  meisten  brauchen  und 
gebrauchen.2*  This  statement  was  repeated  by  him  ten  years 
later  and  was  severely  criticized  by  Wendland.25  The  study  of 
the  text,  however,  shows  that  Nestle  was  correct  in  his  estimate. 
We  find  Aquila  giving  certain  pluses  over  other  Greek  texts; 
Origen  uses  all  of  these  and  adds  still  others;  Lucian  includes 
all  of  the  pluses  of  Origen  and  adds  others ;  finally,  the  Masoretic 
text  has  more  pluses  than  any  of  them.  The  fact  that  these 
are  in  chronological  order  leads  to  the  supposition  that  the  ten- 
dency of  copyists  was  to  add  to,  rather  than  to  omit  from  previ- 
ous versions.  This  means,  then,  that  of  all  the  Greek  versions, 
that  of  Lucian  is  the  least  authentic  witness  to  the  quantity  of 
the  original  Hebrew.  We  may  go  farther  and  say  that  if  the 
only  evidence  for  a  given  reading  is  the  version  of  Lucian  there 
is  a  strong  probability  that  this  reading  is  a  later  addition  which 
may  be  discarded.  Of  course  this  principle  cannot  be  adopted 
as  fixed  and  unvarying;  accidents  are  always  to  be  looked  for, 
and  the  evidence  must  be  weighed  in  each  individual  case. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  instances,  e.  g.,  2 : 11,  31 ;  3:2, 
25,  in  which  Lucian  evidently  endeavored  to  render  the  Hebrew 
more  literally  than  the  texts  with  which  he  was  familiar.  While 
he  took  the  suggestion  in  some  instances  from  Origen,  in  others 
he  apparently  acted  upon  his  own  initiative.  For  questions  of 
vocabulary  and  of  the  form  and  meaning  of  words  the  Lucianic 

24  Septuaginta  Studien,  I,  p.  9. 

25  Philologus,  vol.  57,  p.  286. 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         185 

version  is  a  more  reliable  witness.  The  contention  of  Nestle, 
then,  is  too  sweeping,  for  there  are  cases  where  the  version  of 
Lucian  throws  valuable  light  upon  textual  study.  The  service 
of  Lucian,  however,  is  not  of  enough  importance  to  warrant 
the  labor  entailed  by  an  endeavor  to  complete  the  work  of 
Lagarde.  A  more  useful  work  would  be  a  catalogue  of  Luciamc 
readings,  prepared  upon  more  strict  principles  than  the  work 
of  Lagarde,  and  accompanied  by  notes  which  would  indicate  the 
source  of  the  readings. 


186 


JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 


0 
CO      w 

Is 


HH  CQ 

Q 
% 

•4 


*s 

I  p. 


w 


P     s 

•y 


i- 

w 

^         ?    w        £ 

0 

§      1111 

br                    ^        JS-                tf     *x/> 

§        S   c,       ^  w 

Z        ^    3        ° 

1 

Ta  ijiiaTia 
avTOV 

*    *     * 

1-  !  i 

b       (y<    *vJ> 

33     S    H 

Pui 

N 

0 

II 


1 


^> 

^ 

b 


h 


YERKES:     LUCIANIC   VERSION    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         187 


C£>    CO 
^     CO 


^ 

Lucianic  texts 

rl 

«       0 

fc       ?  1 

J8:ili 

€t7T<us  eicraKOVcreTcu  22. 

51.  62.  90.  147.  22 
308. 

eiTToas  etcra/covcrai,  91.  C 
>s  TOUS  Aoyovs 

CO 
rH 

«o 

CO 
G^     £ 

.        T—  1 
O»      <» 

j* 

c/>    CO 

!}s 

o 

o 

o      ^ 

GC 

O             ."-, 

CO                ;o 
1                ^     1 

liis 

0       0 

*~* 

«5 

|" 

s-  1        f  J  S 

| 

ik 

w 

S3 

§       0 

rr  .  i  a  i-  i 

Ss 
J^     S>     5>     K 

O 

1 

£ 
1 

(/i 

§ 

I 

o 

1 

1 

S 

fc 

% 

£ 

iO 

s 

C 

r 

« 

o 

r 

*• 

| 

3 

i 

I 
kq 

1  § 

§  1 

n 

t:      0 

i!  iif 

g^  g.  ^  «2    g    l- 

0"      5_      0        3        0        ?=3 

i"  ^  I  I  ' 

€t7ro>s  etcraKOVcr 

^< 
§ 

i 

ov  -  -  avrov 

1 

d 

M 

O 

1 

0 

^ 

9k 

¥ 

0 

g 

2 

i 

b 

i 

i- 

KINGS  19 

03 

h 
i 

ir   Jf 

|    «             3      ^     § 

1  1  J  I  !  P 
i  ^  §  i 

o 
3 

Travras  rovs  Ac 

ov  -  -  aurov 

1 

3 

M 

O 

I" 

C 

^ 

1 

•e- 

I 

<M 

% 

% 

i^ 

J^, 

Hebrew 

C 

n 

j^ 

f— 

£ 

n 

c 

s 

B 

-44 

r 

188 


JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 


£ 

| 

k)  •$ 

S 

1 
! 

7rpo<rtvxr)<: 

V7T€.p  TOV  Act/ 

1 

g 

1        i 
ill1.  I 

| 
^ 

g 

I 

i 

, 

| 

1 

• 

g     § 

QQ      !2 

o        |. 

i—  i          ^ 
M          d 

1 

J 
| 

9 
t= 

S 

1        1 

§    g                          ~^- 

c§    3          d                b 
*    w    :                ^ 

8S1°  i    t 

1 

g 
g 

c/» 

i 

(M 

n 

j^ 

'i  ^ 

1 

tS  a 

YERKES:     LUCIANIC    VERSION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT         189 


rH               CO*               CO     O     CO*                         <+                                   <3J 

• 

0              05              CC     ~     05                        ^ 

Q  < 

^           rN?           ^    °^       •                   co                          ^ 
^             0             Io    °°    °°                      C5                »'           °* 

^  0 

co'      •  S         w  co      •               2         ®         S 

CQ          .                 «O 

co*   c:  <5          ^ 

w   co   ^            .   ?5   co                  .      .   cc*         0' 

•CQ^JL              COJ                                  CO^"^              rn 

42  ^      .  ^         ^  »4     '               co^. 

.  co  co        22 
cc  TH  as        "* 

§      ^    0?     ^'              CO     ^     CQ     ^              ^      g     ^*             ^ 

co'   e§  %         « 

s 

.1 

•2W        .GQCOc^CoSS                 'dCQ               K 
*5      -COCQCQcQO       £       §•      •       g       t^r^'      S 

1  -I5i*?{  ill 

•j                   H                ^f4                   K       IE                   6*       O       41  >     4        r^ 

W                    V                                           SUW                    O^hHhHW 

CO 

•   GQ    co          S 

MN^r 

« 

s 

w 

« 

s 

H? 

K 

«  1  1       -<     1 

A 

1-5 

vu                                                       CjQ_ 

00 

oi§      g     ^      e  s      a      a 

fc        4"        5                         oo 

a'  a"  a"      a 

o    o    o          § 

CQ 

L 

1                            s 

^H 

-o                                                                     0 

CQ 

1 

ce 

g 

w 

i-l                                                               CQ                                      CO 

CQ 

O 

i                i 

S     p 
*     o 

cc 
H 
H 

H 

H 

b 

^   -                                s               ? 

"g       §                   ,                                        1                  C,       |                                        8- 

§»  s    8    *"       1       ^        i  g         ^        " 
d^§  I       1     ^      |«               fc 

«f*                     X                   T>vT         ?J                     O                     S» 

ft!  i 

3-    3     §          di 

O 

^PW                                              W^^^HHSS* 

i-    S    a          5> 

fe 

O 

f 

cu 

ci 

1 

1 

o 
0 

:£ 

i 

5 

71 

05  i  g  .                |         s- 

g  :  !     K             g     2-    ^ 
*  3  1           ass           6 

I       S      S              °  1               I- 

•8     |     s 

N           ?> 

t/»        O                     MJ 

f  S  6      ^ 

IB 

1 

H3 

co                                                  o:                              o 

1-1                                                         rH.                                C? 

190 


JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 


rH                         O     CO 
»O                      CS     CO 

co                10   ^ 

Q 

CO       ~H 

CO    CO 

iO     CO 

G^£ 

—  ^ 

oi 

^? 

^fc 

CO                      CO 
T*                      CO    06 

^               J    00        . 

CO 

S  co 

.     CO        . 
^     CO 

co                c^   *^? 

CO                      0 

.     O* 

%     1  «  ^ 

CO 
CO 

06  « 

^     CO 

CO 
CO 

C) 

T 

Lucianic  texts 

rH      CO 

s  *    m  s  . 

v    <tt             o            ^ 
2     G^              fkf-j         • 

|  s  o  §  3  ^ 

^  c<*    fc     3"  CD  co 

p   co     £     *•    ci   c^ 

3,  ^  i  s  ^  § 

|  ^  GO  ^     3j  ^ 

3.  i  -:  s.  1  " 

^Ji  £^g 

rH       ^ 

CO       0 

^    s- 

CO      *• 

^^        p 

if? 

}L^apOLKCOO~€V  36. 

90.  96.  106.  19 

p€ve/3a\ov  C. 
nwKoSofirjcrtv  22. 
90.  91.  96.  19: 

d 

w 
1  ° 

%T 

£  w      2°  ?° 

8 

Jjy- 

^    2~ 

o 

^               vt;       «u 

&O        i 

k 

3°    t: 

5 

on 

o 

I 

? 

c 

g 

i 

1 

-T 

CQ 

d        1 

O             g.    3J 

V                                 t- 

O                ^»       w 

^     P            l>    3- 

p 
o 

rr 

1 

t 

r 

•J 
1 

w 

• 

n 

n 

1 

^ 

^ 

S 

r 

F 

•^l 

C 

i. 

§ 

J 

I 

N 

"N 

il 

s 

!k 

f 

02-            o 

3-                         3- 

M    i-  1 

§• 

J 

^ 

1 

^ 

3-           «     3- 
t-            fe     K 
>.            ?*»    a. 

V                     VU         \U 

w     v           i.  6& 
3J  *" 

d    § 

s   : 

i 

1 
N 

4 
i- 

1 

8 

I 

§- 

k 

3 

a, 

t;L 

r 

3-                 S     I 

,! 

\±j 

ii- 

^b 

1 

S 
?< 

—  « 
W 

3°           S*    3j 
*-            «     K 
^            ?*•    >. 

W                w       w 

-  i    £j 
E  1     r  r 

fl    CO 

0      3 

^ 

I1 

1 

1 

n 

n 

g 

^ 

^ 

£ 

^ 

« 

-o 

* 

r 

r 

£ 

YERKES:     LUCIANIC   VERSION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT        191 


CO         .     CO     rH 
CO     rH     CO     C5 
CO 

f  ®  ^  s 

O          .    ^^  ji,  * 

rH 
GO 

80 

u»          •        3^    ;^ 
co     ^0      P     GO 

rH        O 

C) 

Lucianic  text 
a-vvoxr) 

kKCLTOV 

^  <^  fc  S 

3^t- 

Is  fs 
f  s  N 

S    P-O 
«    £0    .. 

GO          P       r-  1          3 

(^       0     CO      « 

C^?      *"     C^      uj 

CO       K     CO      ^ 

1 
I 

f 

^~l 

(/<    °§ 

o            ^ 

^                    rf 

r~ 

w 

lO 

3       5 

K               w 

v                ^ 

o 

^o 

a 

3 

§ 

.' 

JEREM] 

to     >5    P 
£^*     O 

H    co      ^ 
Q2_     w      O 

£.    ^ 

1,1 

fe  1  1 

*•    ^  - 

1- 

^ 

(/>    *^? 

2° 

&      i 

p 
o 

<% 

n 

1 

c 

1 

^ 

n 

i* 

n 

10 

•S 

CO 

*~ 

p 
o 

p  t/i 

S      & 

t  '  R  i 

N  . 

P           b 
g           * 

1 

8     ^    co 

2     b    S 

c~         2 

. 

$z~ 

!!! 

^    3     h 

J4° 

w 
7T 

1"         « 

•0 

1          g 

f 

1 

j 

p 
o 

g 

P-         ^ 

1 

fc. 

S          ^ 

^           b 

Q^ 

op 

5-      ti 

^^        ! 

i 

1 

1—  1 

02    x  S 

11 

-S     ^O       ' 

QD       vu      O 

R5                           (y 

1 

p- 

« 

S  I 

!w 

1               1 

1 

i1 

g 

a 

1 

0 

CO 


P 


om. 

WV  T 

om 


fi  . 

Hi 

a 


I 


13 


co 


192 


JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 


^ 


,_ 
L 


JEREM 
B 


S        K 

S      1 


oa. 


•^  b 

^    CO 

H 


o 

h      7^ 

CO     CO     CO              *"H    -^^     CO 

!:« 

^i   o^   co          o^         co 

3J     T—  1 

^    TT1                   ^    CO 

£    o 

C<i    ^    CO            »    CN    HH 

a    06 

d  of  **      g  05  3 

2 

3-     .   co             .  &      , 

3    cd       - 

h     G9     05             00        .     0 

x<     CO     rH 

P     CO     1—4              "^T     CO     C? 

*C 

P               CO 

**-.       .                               O5 

1  * 

SCO     ^^    /-^ 

ss  3     §  ^  d» 

c/»    ^ 

Jjl 

c/.  §  >»  o  p 

•i       u       O       ?=-     O 

'^         ,       **      -^     Oi 

*j       rt       v       3 
w     (-ir       —       ui     rH 

^^1~l<?jj  33  s 

u; 

^     *"     |     I    Is 

».    a  ^   J    b 

M-ftj  s-§ 

5~  CD     O              t*     CD      b     CO 
TO     T-M    O       b     Ol      <w     ^ 
3->                          w 

8 

p-     £       fc    co       3 

?r-    I-    <1    ^ 

h                                   00 

4 

|_ 

3- 

^8  §  § 

g             ^ 

1 

1 

s  1-  s  fc.  | 

=*-    k     w    3-    a 

•k            M            H            ^ 

t: 

3^ 

>0 

i 

i  *  1  1  ~* 

co     *•     a     w     d 

5?-       Vy          P      6O 

|44  *^ 

&  £  <i  ^ 

s           r 

£          s 

n 

r 

£ 

n 

X- 

C 

n 

^ 

s  i 

c<? 

^     o^ 

3     « 

r~^ 

<"             s.. 

"P     o 

t: 

s                    ^ 

^Q»        V 

3^. 

& 

ij    1:1 

lllfi 

rf                         ti           S 

i  UiJi 

8nt44 

^ 

3-                          c/. 

i>    1 

^    t-                  b 
3-                         w 

I-                                   0 

\ 

i    1 

S         « 

j 

1 

* 

& 

55   ^3   ^     ?>  ^S 

11  J  g-  | 

i-  &  §  J  "s 

<^  ^ 

till 

JT    b   ^   •". 
fc«*l 

r 

1         § 
?         s 

w 

^ 

^ 

n 

oc 


FOURTEEN  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 


Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


LIBRARY  USi; 


SEP  9     I9K> 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(B139s22)476 


YC  29586 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


1 


